DRIFT TO TOWNS

Press, Volume LXXXIII, Issue 25367, 15 December 1947, Page 6

DRIFT TO TOWNS

REVIEW OF 1945 Census ’ “FEATURE NOT NEW IN NEW ZEALAND” The drift of population from toe country into the town was not a new feature in New Zealand, nor was it cpnfined to New Zealand. It was a movement experienced in. nearly every country and was accepted by some as not merely a natural process, but also an inevitable and desirable one, states the first volume of a review of the population census, 1945, a publication compiled by the Census and Statistics Department. “With the development of improved methods of agriculture and a more efficient transport system the same proportion of the population is not essential to produce the necessary supplies of food and raw materials from the farm,” the review states. “The transfer of many industries from the home to the factory has aided the change. The requirements of modern life have added greatly to the number of necessary adjuncts to living which are produced in factories, or, at least, best produced by urban communities. The amenities of life, from the more popular points of view are more easily to be had in the towns. “Urbanisation in New Zealand has naturally not yet reached the stage now recorded in European countries, but the process is still going on andthere is no doubt that it will, continue for some time. A more balanced economy appears to be in the natural order of events, and this may entail a continuance of the so-called drift” A table in the review shows that in 1911 the percentage of the population living in counties, including town districts, was 49.26, and in boroughs ineluding cities, 50.14. In 1926 the percentage in counties had dropped to 41.02 and in 1945 to 36.81, with 62.89 m boroughs and cities. Urbanisation had proceeded further in the North Island than in the South Island

General Trend . "The general trend is fairly clearly indicated. Urban drift has been maintained at a fairly rapid rate, with, a chock to the rate between 1926 and 1936, and a marked acceleration between 1936 and 1945. The check was probably caused by the conditions resulting from the depression in the second half of the decade. Lack of urban employment acted as a temporary deterrent and there is reason to believe that there were numerous instances of younger persons returning to their homes in toe country The 1945 figures support the view that the drift was accelerated as a direct result of the war—increased industrialisation. increased demand for labour and manpower controls being the principal reasons for the drift. “At the beginning of the present century about 17 per cent, of the population lived in towns with a population of more than 10,000. By 1945 the proportion has grown to more than 46 per J*”*- £ u as be f n stated that motor transport has adversely affected the growth of smaller towns through diversion of business to larger centres, figures do not contradict this

r*!? ew adds that it was noteworthy that there was no large predominant town, as was the case in many other countries. In New Zea„nn t , h n e , urban ar ® a of Wellington had L y ?° l, per , cent of the population, and Auckland 15.5 per cent. Except in the earlier days, there had always been a marked gap between the four main centres and the next largest town. Dunedin, the smallest of the four, had 83.351 inhabitants, and the next important In size— lnvercargill, Palmerston North, Hamilton, and Wanganui—were ail under the 27 600 mark. ’